<quoted text>Wouldn't absence of government regulation remove restrictions on freedom?<quoted text>Each state is free to define marriage as it wishes. One state cannot force a state to do otherwise.<quoted text>Different courts have ruled differently in regards to marriage and SSCs.<quoted text>Human reproduction is sexual. A SSC cannot reproduce in this manner, nor can they provide both mother and father in one union.<quoted text>That argument fails to acknowledge the link between procreation and marriage.<quoted text>It is not fear mongering nor can equal treatment be applied to an unequal situation. An OSC is just that. A SSC is either male or female, it does not contain both sexes. Thus the rules are different.<quoted text>Why would something that occurs naturally need to be required?<quoted text>SSCs cannot participate under the same rules as OSCs, for the simple fact they are of the same sex. The basis of marriage, and its nature is conjugality, the union of husband and wife.<quoted text>Plural marriage is marriage, historically, culturally, religiously, and/or legally in many parts of the world, including the U.S. It still maintains the opposite sex nature of the marital relationship. SSM does not. SSM preserves the number, but not the nature.

It is not fear mongering nor can equal treatment be applied to an unequal situation. An OSC is just that. A SSC is either male or female, it does not contain both sexes. Thus the rules are different.

Thus the rules are different?

Is that from the Thus Act of 2013? Nice try. No cigar, but good for a laugh.

SSCs cannot participate under the same rules as OSCs, for the simple fact they are of the same sex. The basis of marriage, and its nature is conjugality, the union of husband and wife.

For many years, my partner was an in-home health care worker for a married quadruplegic couple. They were already both paralyzed when they met and married. They have NEVER met this criterion of conjugality, and they never, ever will. If they had a child through artificially-supported means (as many gay couples do), they'd require an even larger army of health care workers than they already have, to raise the child FOR them.

No one challenged their conjugality when they sought their marriage. No one challenged their inability to parent. They were allowed to marry because they LOVE each other, and that is what their marriage is based on, like any other marriage.

Conjugality is not TRULY a criterion, to begin with. It's only an excuse to disallow gay couples from doing what straight couples already do. When cases like paralyzed couples are raised, "conjugality" is retracted as a criterion, under the guise of being an "exception to the rule". But this is done over and over, for couples like those with Down syndrome, who are allowed to marry but should NOT be encouraged to parent, or couples where one is permanently incarcerated, who cannot jointly raise any children yet are allowed to marry. "Exceptions" are supposed to be just that--ONE TIME reconsiderations. Repeated use defeats the "exception to the rule" rule, and lays bare the use of this excuse as xenophobia, used by those who don't understand their gay fellow citizens, and simply can't bring themselves to stand as equals with them under equal titles.

<quoted text>Such a strange and contradictory statement. Faith isn't "the evidence" of anything other than a belief.Faith is the BELIEF in things unseen, for which there is no empirical evidence.If there was evidence for a claim, accepting that claim wouldn't require faith.<quoted text>There is empirical evidence for electricity. There is ample evidence for the existence of electricity beyond accepting the claim of what other have told you. We don't believe in electricity just because some tells us it exists. Stick a wet finger in a powered light socket with the switch on; "belief" or "faith" won't make any difference in the outcome.<quoted text>Clearly. You are alive and the body is dead. That is not evidence of a "soul" or "spirit". That's evidence of life.<quoted text>"All understanding"? There is no other rational explanation for changes in lives, human decision making, the unexpected or apparently "unbelievable" happenings other than "a god did it"? There are plenty of explanations for all these things that don't rely on a belief in some unsupported and conveniently unsupportable faith claim.<quoted text>Well, if reality is what you're basing your beliefs on, then you'd have to demonstrate how one comes to accept what is real. Believing in something for which there is no empirical evidence is hardly a basis for determining "which is real."If it's a matter of "enslavement", I can argue just as easily that one who is tied to a faith belief for which there is no empirical evidence is much more "enslaved" that one who chooses to accept empirical reality.<quoted text>One can choose to have a reason to live or die, to have a meaning for his or her life (or not), to attribute meaning to life, without believing in supernatural beings or mythology.The title of this thread is "Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes". It's just this kind of lazy and unsupportable thinking that gives us leaders of churches telling the rest of society that they have to fashion the law that governs everyone else around their ridiculous claims. The vast majority of the anti-gay are people who base their claims on faith beliefs that cannot be supported with evidence.

yes it's off topic but you asked.

i sure wish i could figure out how to break up a response and respond point by point as you did but them i'm a hammer jockey and am very pleased to be able to navigate a computer to the extent that i do. so i'll do the best i can.

you say faith is a belief "in things unseen, for which there is no empirical evidence." that would be your understanding of faith but it also is a confession that you see no empirical evidence in the case for a belief in God.

my use of the electricity example was simply to say that understanding is not necessary for something to be real or applied to our advantage in life. i have not seen electricity nor do i understand it. perhaps you have and actually do understand it. but then i would have to take your word for it, faith.

your comment about my life example can also be used to explain my point."You are alive and the body is dead. That is not evidence of a "soul" or "spirit". That's evidence of life."so explain to me just what is life? where is it? why can't we perpetuate it? we don't know but we know it is real by empirical evidence as you would put it. but what makes it even exist? i would think that an objective consideration of other unexplainable things might add up to empirical evidence of a spirit world that can not be seen no defined. it really comes down to what we except as empirical evidence.

<quoted text>yes it's off topic but you asked.i sure wish i could figure out how to break up a response and respond point by point as you did but them i'm a hammer jockey and am very pleased to be able to navigate a computer to the extent that i do. so i'll do the best i can.you say faith is a belief "in things unseen, for which there is no empirical evidence." that would be your understanding of faith but it also is a confession that you see no empirical evidence in the case for a belief in God.my use of the electricity example was simply to say that understanding is not necessary for something to be real or applied to our advantage in life. i have not seen electricity nor do i understand it. perhaps you have and actually do understand it. but then i would have to take your word for it, faith.your comment about my life example can also be used to explain my point."You are alive and the body is dead. That is not evidence of a "soul" or "spirit". That's evidence of life."so explain to me just what is life? where is it? why can't we perpetuate it? we don't know but we know it is real by empirical evidence as you would put it. but what makes it even exist?i would think that an objective consideration of other unexplainable things might add up to empirical evidence of a spirit world that can not be seen no defined. it really comes down to what we except as empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence is that which can be observed by the senses or recorded through experimentation. It is through empirical evidence that we judge what is real from what is purely imagined, claimed, or merely believed. Empirical evidence is observable, testable, repeatable, verifiable, and falsifiable.

Faith claims of gods, spirits, souls, ghosts, angels, devils, monsters, etc. satisfy none of those criteria. Such claims are meaningless when attempted to be used to describe reality.

Those who base public policy on such beliefs, such as the church leaders in the article that leads this thread, are asking other citizens who don't share their unsupported and unsupportable claims to be governed by them.

That's not off-topic. That's something that all reasonable people should reject.

<quoted text>much the same way that we use the phrase "in love".salvation is a "death" to our old lifestyle of self-centered living and planting or submerging one's self in Christ. it starts with believing repenting and receiving by faith the truth of God's promise to us through Christ.

Sounds really boring. How can one be in Christ? Why would believing make any difference? Suppose a person is incapable of belief? Then what?

Still silly, since the government does not interfere in this way with marriages.

You are asking the government to interfere with marriage to create a new standard of gender segregation.

.

Quest wrote:

There is no "diversity" requirement in the marriage bed.

Before the 21st century, ALL marriage law defined marriage as gender diverse.

.

Quest wrote:

People may choose someone of the same race, or the same religion, and the government does not interfere.

Race and religion aren't important, there are ancient arguments for interracial marriage but none for same sex marriage.

.

Quest wrote:

Yet you demand government interference due to gender only? Try again.

Gender differences are great and important for the survival of the human race.

.

Quest wrote:

Prove WHY such governmental interference in marriage choice is good for couples, kids, and society.Cut and pasting the same meaningless and illogical phrase isn't proof. It's just a wordy version of "gay people are icky and I don't want them marrying". And that won't stand in a court of law.

Keep marriage as is, one man and one woman. Stop government from redefining marriage to fit the predilections of a small minority group.

BTW, many homosexuals support marriage as gender diverse and integrated. Every gay was born of male/female union.

<quoted text>For many years, my partner was an in-home health care worker for a married quadruplegic couple. They were already both paralyzed when they met and married. They have NEVER met this criterion of conjugality, and they never, ever will. If they had a child through artificially-supported means (as many gay couples do), they'd require an even larger army of health care workers than they already have, to raise the child FOR them.No one challenged their conjugality when they sought their marriage. No one challenged their inability to parent. They were allowed to marry because they LOVE each other, and that is what their marriage is based on, like any other marriage.

Legally they still accepted each other as, and were pronounced,'husband and wife'. It all stems from that.

Conjugality is not TRULY a criterion, to begin with. It's only an excuse to disallow gay couples from doing what straight couples already do. When cases like paralyzed couples are raised, "conjugality" is retracted as a criterion, under the guise of being an "exception to the rule". But this is done over and over, for couples like those with Down syndrome, who are allowed to marry but should NOT be encouraged to parent, or couples where one is permanently incarcerated, who cannot jointly raise any children yet are allowed to marry. "Exceptions" are supposed to be just that--ONE TIME reconsiderations. Repeated use defeats the "exception to the rule" rule, and lays bare the use of this excuse as xenophobia, used by those who don't understand their gay fellow citizens, and simply can't bring themselves to stand as equals with them under equal titles.

Its about 'husband and wife', everything else stems from that. The law presumes the couple will consummate their marriage, engage in 'marital relations', etc. Is every couple able or willing to do that? No, there will always be exceptions, but they do not invalidate the rule. If the conjugal sexual aspect is no longer the legal foundation of marriage, and the state's interest in it, then there's no reason to prohibit siblings, or other opposite sex adult blood relatives from marrying. Nor is there any sufficient reason to regulate marriage at all. Why would it matter who married who?

<quoted text>Legally they still accepted each other as, and were pronounced,'husband and wife'. It all stems from that.<quoted text>Its about 'husband and wife', everything else stems from that. The law presumes the couple will consummate their marriage, engage in 'marital relations', etc. Is every couple able or willing to do that? No, there will always be exceptions, but they do not invalidate the rule. If the conjugal sexual aspect is no longer the legal foundation of marriage, and the state's interest in it, then there's no reason to prohibit siblings, or other opposite sex adult blood relatives from marrying. Nor is there any sufficient reason to regulate marriage at all. Why would it matter who married who?

Sweetie, the function of marriage has long been used to establishish HEIRSHIP, and in our society establishes ENTITLEMENT-FIRSTLY and foremost to the contractees, SECONDLY to any children that might be a result of their union. That is why children and reproduction are SECONDARY considerations, and are recognized as the default heirs should both the contractees be deceased. That is why marriage is of importance to both gay and straight couples: because it uniquely applies FIRSTLY to them. As for reproduction it's not encouraged for the same reason wymyn lobbied to get the legal age of consent raised: legitimate and established health and safety reasons. Pregnancy is a tremendous stress on the human body, and if we can give any incentive for delaying pregnancy until a womyn's body is mature enough to accomodate it we should. legal age of consent is a reasonable restriction. In the case of inbreeding, study hemophilia in Europe monarchy, besides the many that were batsh*t crazy and you have a great demonstration why we don't provide an incentive for inbreeding. It exponentially increases the chance of birth defect, which becomes everyone's concern, especially if you consider the possible need for long-term care that might have to be subsidized by the state. And again, as a matter of marriage equality you could'nt allow same sex siblings.

<quoted text>Sweetie, the function of marriage has long been used to establishish HEIRSHIP, and in our society establishes ENTITLEMENT-FIRSTLY and foremost to the contractees, SECONDLY to any children that might be a result of their union. That is why children and reproduction are SECONDARY considerations, and are recognized as the default heirs should both the contractees be deceased. That is why marriage is of importance to both gay and straight couples: because it uniquely applies FIRSTLY to them. As for reproduction it's not encouraged for the same reason wymyn lobbied to get the legal age of consent raised: legitimate and established health and safety reasons. Pregnancy is a tremendous stress on the human body, and if we can give any incentive for delaying pregnancy until a womyn's body is mature enough to accomodate it we should. legal age of consent is a reasonable restriction. In the case of inbreeding, study hemophilia in Europe monarchy, besides the many that were batsh*t crazy and you have a great demonstration why we don't provide an incentive for inbreeding. It exponentially increases the chance of birth defect, which becomes everyone's concern, especially if you consider the possible need for long-term care that might have to be subsidized by the state. And again, as a matter of marriage equality you could'nt allow same sex siblings.

Let me filter this into a simple statement: addressing children isn't the sole function of marriage, they are just one of many contingencies covered by the marriage contract; with or without them marriage provides advantage to the contractees

<quoted text>Thanks for the confirmation of your position.While you continue to insist treating gay people equally under the laws currently in effect will lead to changing those laws and structure of society, you avoid adressing the many differences and fail to show why more of the same will require changing to something very different for everyone.Polygamy is a separate argument because it changes the rules, laws, and relationship dynamics of the entire society for straight and gay people on a fundamental level, while allowing gay people the same rights straight people currently enjoy does not change the rules, laws, or relationship dynamics for straight people. Polygamy is neither an equal legal nor social structure. It is a change of social order to something very different.As practiced, polygamy restricts the availability of women, denying some men the opportunity for marriage, which would have a destabilizing effect on society. Allowing gay people to marry under the rules currently in place, has a stabilizing effect on those relationships and society in general.As it is usually one man and as many women as he can afford, it would result in rich men having many wives with poorer men having none. That also results in older men having more wives while putting pressure on women to marry younger, as is currently the practice. This dynamic limits the possibilities for women to have equal opportunities in education, employment, and status, in and outside of the relationship.It also changes the genetic balance by limiting the gene pool, which history has shown is not in the interest of survivability of the species.Allowing gay people to marry does not limit the gene pool, but possibly expands it. Additionally, gay couples often adopt, and often take in the hard to place children that have been abused and discarded by their straight parents, which provides another stabilizing influence on society, and does not alter the current structure.There are other frequently observed problems with polygamy including child abuse, spousal abuse, child custody, property divisions, and inequality of relationships. These examples should help to point out why polygamy is a separate argument. It is a different social and legal structure. Therefore, it cannot be considered equal treatment under the laws currently in effect.Because it is a different argument, it is far from an inevitable consequence of marriage equality for same sex couples. Allowing gay people the same opportunities and dignity straight people have however, is a matter of fairness and equality.

A few points. Although all those points mentioned on polygamy are valid concerns, they do not necessarily apply to consensual plural marriage arrangements. The adults in such relationships have chosen them, and they contain biological children of both the husband and wife.

Gay people do raise adopted children, particularly in some cases children who have special needs, and are good parents. However that alone is not grounds for marital designation.

Gay people CAN marry under the rules currently in effect and be treated like any other husband or wife in an opposite sex marriage.

Why is dignity important as a criteria in evaluating the legality of ssm, but not plural marriage?

SSM preserves the number of the current marriage structure but not the nature. Plural marriage preserves the nature but not the number. So which trumps which, or are both worthy of legalization?

<quoted text>Sweetie, the function of marriage has long been used to establishish HEIRSHIP, and in our society establishes ENTITLEMENT-FIRSTLY and foremost to the contractees, SECONDLY to any children that might be a result of their union. That is why children and reproduction are SECONDARY considerations, and are recognized as the default heirs should both the contractees be deceased.

Greetings Ruby the Dyke. Nice....Today boys and grrls on the Ruby the Dyke show....

If the procreational element is removed, what is left? Is it simply a means of dealing with what becomes a friendship contract. Why does there need to be that in the first place?

That is why marriage is of importance to both gay and straight couples: because it uniquely applies FIRSTLY to them. As for reproduction it's not encouraged for the same reason wymyn lobbied to get the legal age of consent raised: legitimate and established health and safety reasons.

Procreation will still occur, it is the natural end result of sex between a man and a whoa man. Marriage serves as a means of regulating that. No such regulation is necessary in same sex sexual relations.

Pregnancy is a tremendous stress on the human body, and if we can give any incentive for delaying pregnancy until a womyn's body is mature enough to accomodate it we should. legal age of consent is a reasonable restriction. In the case of inbreeding, study hemophilia in Europe monarchy, besides the many that were batsh*t crazy and you have a great demonstration why we don't provide an incentive for inbreeding. It exponentially increases the chance of birth defect, which becomes everyone's concern, especially if you consider the possible need for long-term care that might have to be subsidized by the state.

Wimmin will still continue to get pregnant. That's how humanity reproduces.

And again, as a matter of marriage equality you could'nt allow same sex siblings.

Why? No risk of pregnancy should the siblings be sexually intimate. First cousins are allowed to marry. There are pairs of siblings who for all practical purposes are in spousal relationships for many years. Why shouldn't they be allowed to access those 1,000 plus benefits we hear so much about?

<quoted text>Let me filter this into a simple statement: addressing children isn't the sole function of marriage, they are just one of many contingencies covered by the marriage contract; with or without them marriage provides advantage to the contractees

<quoted text>A few points. Although all those points mentioned on polygamy are valid concerns, they do not necessarily apply to consensual plural marriage arrangements. The adults in such relationships have chosen them, and they contain biological children of both the husband and wife.Gay people do raise adopted children, particularly in some cases children who have special needs, and are good parents. However that alone is not grounds for marital designation.Gay people CAN marry under the rules currently in effect and be treated like any other husband or wife in an opposite sex marriage.Why is dignity important as a criteria in evaluating the legality of ssm, but not plural marriage?SSM preserves the number of the current marriage structure but not the nature. Plural marriage preserves the nature but not the number. So which trumps which, or are both worthy of legalization?

Hon, the point you bring up is a separate topic; the point you were making is that same-sex marriage and polygamy are equivalent-they are not under current marriage accomodation. Whether or not both need to be worthy of dignity and legalization is another matter. Again, I have no quarrel, your marriage does not define my marriage, you have not obligation to adopt your life to my template, I have no right impose my ideal. But again, to accomodate polygamy in any legal manner in our soociety either requires a major overhaul on the definition of marriage or, what is offered us, a separate legal cagagory covering you multi-partnership. Hell Darling look at the resistence to SSM when all that is required is the simple inclusion with absolutely no change to the structure! About the only way you going to boot people from "but that's the way it's always been" is some major catatrophe in which "the way it's always been" demonstrably no longer works-can't even imagine what that woud be. What is clear is that the old slippery slope argument really isn't valid.

Proponents of laws prohibiting plural marriage often maintain they are needed because the practice necessarily involves criminal behavior, such as statutory rape, incest, and welfare fraud. Indeed, in addition to the bigamy charges, Green was convicted of criminal non-support and child rape, and Holm was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor. These are crimes that can and should be prosecuted under other statutes. However, by criminalizing private, consensual, adult relationships that are motivated by sincerely held religious beliefs, we fail to live up to the constitutional promise that consenting adults be free to maintain and define their personal relationships without fear of government interference.

Not Yet Equal wrote:

<quoted text>Thanks for the confirmation of your position.While you continue to insist treating gay people equally under the laws currently in effect will lead to changing those laws and structure of society, you avoid adressing the many differences and fail to show why more of the same will require changing to something very different for everyone.Polygamy is a separate argument because it changes the rules, laws, and relationship dynamics of the entire society for straight and gay people on a fundamental level, while allowing gay people the same rights straight people currently enjoy does not change the rules, laws, or relationship dynamics for straight people. Polygamy is neither an equal legal nor social structure. It is a change of social order to something very different.As practiced, polygamy restricts the availability of women, denying some men the opportunity for marriage, which would have a destabilizing effect on society. Allowing gay people to marry under the rules currently in place, has a stabilizing effect on those relationships and society in general.As it is usually one man and as many women as he can afford, it would result in rich men having many wives with poorer men having none. That also results in older men having more wives while putting pressure on women to marry younger, as is currently the practice. This dynamic limits the possibilities for women to have equal opportunities in education, employment, and status, in and outside of the relationship.It also changes the genetic balance by limiting the gene pool, which history has shown is not in the interest of survivability of the species.Allowing gay people to marry does not limit the gene pool, but possibly expands it. Additionally, gay couples often adopt, and often take in the hard to place children that have been abused and discarded by their straight parents, which provides another stabilizing influence on society, and does not alter the current structure.There are other frequently observed problems with polygamy including child abuse, spousal abuse, child custody, property divisions, and inequality of relationships. These examples should help to point out why polygamy is a separate argument. It is a different social and legal structure. Therefore, it cannot be considered equal treatment under the laws currently in effect.Because it is a different argument, it is far from an inevitable consequence of marriage equality for same sex couples. Allowing gay people the same opportunities and dignity straight people have however, is a matter of fairness and equality.

I need a christian to answer a question for me..In the bible it says that greed and glutony are very bad sins and both are mentioned over 20 times. Now the gay sin deal is mentioned only 5 times....That said...

Why dont christians try to ban fat and rich people but only focus on the less mentioned sin????????

NOTE: The following extracts represent the progression of what has now become the current national ACLU policy on plural marriage.

Policy #91, National ACLU Board Minutes, June 11-12, 1978: Advocacy of plural marriage and the expression of a religious belief in plural marriage are protected by the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment even though polygamy has been declared to be criminal by states. As with the advocacy of political doctrines, a line must be drawn between expression of belief and the actual practice of an act which has been proscribed by the community through its legislative representatives (the test of a clear and present danger).

ACLU of Utah Policy on Plural Marriage, Adopted June 6, 1989: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Utah believes that the right to advocate and practice plural marriage is constitutionally protected.

The ACLU of Utah has traditionally advocated that personal relationships between consenting adults are protected by the Constitution, and that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are fundamental rights. Criminal and civil laws prohibiting the advocacy or practice of plural marriage are constitutionally defective.

Policy #91, National ACLU Policy on Polygamy, April, 1991:(Current Policy) The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.

<quoted text>Greetings Ruby the Dyke. Nice....Today boys and grrls on the Ruby the Dyke show....If the procreational element is removed, what is left? Is it simply a means of dealing with what becomes a friendship contract. Why does there need to be that in the first place?<quoted text>Procreation will still occur, it is the natural end result of sex between a man and a whoa man. Marriage serves as a means of regulating that. No such regulation is necessary in same sex sexual relations.<quoted text>Wimmin will still continue to get pregnant. That's how humanity reproduces.<quoted text>Why? No risk of pregnancy should the siblings be sexually intimate. First cousins are allowed to marry. There are pairs of siblings who for all practical purposes are in spousal relationships for many years. Why shouldn't they be allowed to access those 1,000 plus benefits we hear so much about?

Consider yourself witness to a miracle, Darling: this old lady tipping back a few and wiggling her boobies on a dance floor last night actually being able to string a sentence together this morning-and you thought Mary on a taco shell was epic!

Hon, it's been convered: marriage in our society adressing many non-reproductive legal concerns in an uncontestable manner without thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to cover them, children being just one of many contingencies covered under the auspices of marriage but not the sole reason for it, that in the interests of marriage equality those basic restrictions that address practical concerns restricing closely related people from marriage whether or not they can reproduce. And lord don't I know people reproduce-know a fourteen year old girl in her third trimester, the father goes to junior high with the grandson of a friend of mine-yep they reproduce. I'm not sure what else can be said, honestly. I've stated before that people tend to do things as a couple that they don't really do as single people, such as buying homes, contibuting to the tax base, developing a community focus and in that way contibuting to the general welfare of a community and the children in it, which gives the state a vested interest in couples, stability. If you think I've blah blahed too long okay, I yield the floor. It's just been nice to actually come onto Topix and have a rational reasonable conversation for a change. Thank you.

I need a christian to answer a question for me..In the bible it says that greed and glutony are very bad sins and both are mentioned over 20 times. Now the gay sin deal is mentioned only 5 times....That said...Why dont christians try to ban fat and rich people but only focus on the less mentioned sin????????OH I KNOW...MOST CHRISTIANS ARE FAT AND RICH..........

<quoted text>Consider yourself witness to a miracle, Darling: this old lady tipping back a few and wiggling her boobies on a dance floor last night actually being able to string a sentence together this morning-and you thought Mary on a taco shell was epic!Hon, it's been convered: marriage in our society adressing many non-reproductive legal concerns in an uncontestable manner without thousands of dollars in lawyer fees to cover them, children being just one of many contingencies covered under the auspices of marriage but not the sole reason for it, that in the interests of marriage equality those basic restrictions that address practical concerns restricing closely related people from marriage whether or not they can reproduce. And lord don't I know people reproduce-know a fourteen year old girl in her third trimester, the father goes to junior high with the grandson of a friend of mine-yep they reproduce. I'm not sure what else can be said, honestly. I've stated before that people tend to do things as a couple that they don't really do as single people, such as buying homes, contibuting to the tax base, developing a community focus and in that way contibuting to the general welfare of a community and the children in it, which gives the state a vested interest in couples, stability. If you think I've blah blahed too long okay, I yield the floor. It's just been nice to actually come onto Topix and have a rational reasonable conversation for a change. Thank you.

Civil and reasonable are not the same things.(As of course you know.) If you had time to review the last several pages, you would see the same attempt to equate plural marriage to same sex couple marriage despite the many examples demonstrating they are very different social and legal structures in many different ways. We have also pointed out there are many inequity of relationship problems inherent with incest, beyond the genetic considerations. But at least he hasn't trotted out the horse argument!

You would also see the repeated assertion biological procreation is the basis for marriage, when no such requirement has ever been included in our laws, and sterile couples as well as those who cannot even have sex due to physical limitations or incarceration are still allowed to marry.

But I don't want to discourage you. He has demonstrated a slight willingness to admit there are some differences between 2 and 3 or more, but can't let go of the non-existent procreation requirement.

He has also admitted he doesn't support plural marriage, but sees the drastic change it would require to both the structure of society and the law, as an inevitable consequence of allowing same sex couples equal treatment under the laws currently in effect.

I need a christian to answer a question for me..In the bible it says that greed and glutony are very bad sins and both are mentioned over 20 times. Now the gay sin deal is mentioned only 5 times....That said...Why dont christians try to ban fat and rich people but only focus on the less mentioned sin????????OH I KNOW...MOST CHRISTIANS ARE FAT AND RICH..........

Even the "gay sin deal" is a mistranslation and misinterpretation of ancient texts. Most were addressing pagan ritual orgies with temple prostitutes, not committed relationships based on mutual love and respect.

"What the Bible forbids is acts of lust, rape, idolatry, violation of religious purity obligations, or pederasty, but no condemnation of homosexuality in relationships of mutual respect and love. On the other hand, the Bible pointedly celebrates instances of same-sex emotional intimacy, a fact often overlooked by fearful homophobic readers." James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary

"The original Greek word often quoted as sexual immorality, Paul used was "porneia" which means "a harlot for hire". In Corinth in the temples of Venus, the principal deity of Corinth, where Christians went to worship, a thousand public prostitutes were kept at public expense to glorify and act as surrogates for the fertility Gods. This sex with the pagan Gods is what Paul was talking about - fornication is an admitted mistranslation and has nothing to do with gays or singles sex. This rendering reflected the bias of the translators rather than an accurate translation of Paul's words to a culture of 2000 years ago worshipping pagan sex gods." (Rev. Dr. Mel White)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.